On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 21:02 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. Pradipta Kumar Banerjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 1/2] perftest: enhancement to rdma_bw
> > to allow use of RDMA CM
> >
> > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Thanks for following up on this, on the surface looks good.
> > > I'm busy at the moment, but a quick question:
> > >
> > > Quoting r. Pradipta Kumar Banerjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> +static void pp_wait_for_done(struct pingpong_context *ctx)
> > >> +{
> > >> + struct ibv_wc wc;
> > >> + int ne;
> > >> +
> > >> + do {
> > >> + usleep(500);
> > >> + ne = ibv_poll_cq(ctx->rcq, 1, &wc);
> > >> + } while (ne == 0);
> > >
> > > I wander whether we can get rid of the rcq and an extra send at the
> > > end by simply closing the QP, and ignoring the possible completion with
> > > error
> > > for the last round. I think this would be a nice simplification.
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > Indeed we can get rid of the extra send at the end (pp_wait_for_done and
> > pp_send_done can be removed). As for the rcq need to think about it. Its
> > being
> > used to synchronize the client and the server so that the client sends the
> > first
> > message.
>
> Why do we need an RC send for this? CM or socket message should be enough, no?
>
There's no CM message for this. We could use the socket/tcp connection,
but the current patch doesn't event setup the TCP connection if you use
the --cma flag. So the best and easiest thing to do is use SEND. Why
is this an issue? What's wrong with using the QP send/recv to sync up?
Steve..
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
